The Committee on Chimpanzees in Biomedical
and Behavioral Research (the Committee) is charged with evaluating the
scientific necessity of chimpanzee research. The National Institutes of
Health instructed the Committee not to consider ethical concerns.

But on the order of the numbers game, the
side to end research on chimpanzees overtook the session, with those in
support of it failing to adequately argue either its worth or necessity.

The New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) testified before the
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National
Academies of Science during their second public meeting held in Washington
D.C., August 11 – 12th. The Committee on Chimpanzees in Biomedical and
Behavioral Research (the Committee) is charged with evaluating the
scientific necessity of chimpanzee research. The National Institutes of
Health instructed the Committee not to consider ethical concerns.

During the Public Comment forum, Dr. Theodora Capaldo, NEAVS President,
advised the Committee by quoting Nature: “The agency [NIH] may wish to
divorce the science from the ethics, but society at large will not accept
such a distinction… nor is it intellectually defensible.” Dr. Capaldo’s
testimony made it clear that one cannot separate scientific concerns from
humane ones, since the well-documented physiological stress chimpanzees and
other animals suffer from laboratory confinement and use affects their
brains, bodies, and immune systems, having a profound effect on the nature
of the data obtained from their use.

At the Committee’s first public forum on May 26th, NEAVS’ Science
Director, Dr. Jarrod Bailey, was among the scientists the Committee invited
to testify. Dr. Bailey provided testimony that the use of chimpanzees in
HIV/AIDS, cancer, hepatitis C, and other human disease research has been
limited, inaccurate, un-predictive, and unnecessary and has contributed
little or nothing to human health. Dr. Bailey summarized his research for
the Committee:

“After careful review of over thirty years of chimpanzee use in many
areas of human disease research, the following conclusions can be drawn and
supported scientifically… they’re rarely used today. They have proven to be
poor models in many areas, including HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C; chimpanzee
use in cancer and heart disease research has been almost non-existent
because either they don’t get the disease, or they get a very different
disease. There is burgeoning evidence of major, important and widespread
genetic differences showing why chimpanzees are poor models for human
research….and why they can never be good models.”

At the recent meeting, Dr. Capaldo expanded upon Dr. Bailey’s testimony
by citing research on the psychological and physiological stress effects on
chimpanzees in labs:

“Studies have established that chimpanzees in research suffer from PTSD,
depression and other psychological maladies. And routine and invasive
procedures cause elevations of physiological stress indicators…. Stress
affects immune systems—crucial for the study of infectious diseases—and
vital organs such as the liver—important for the metabolism of drugs—and
renders the use of chimpanzees flawed science…even if assumed they may have
value—which we do not.”

Dr. Capaldo backed her scientific arguments with the dire ethical
concerns surrounding chimpanzee use. She concluded her testimony by
introducing the committee to Jeannie and Tom, rescued from years of invasive
research by the Fauna Foundation. They both later died in sanctuary. Dr.
Capaldo reminded committee members that despite their mandate to focus only
on the science, “we are talking about living beings, not test tubes.” She
read an excerpt from Jeannie’s history of use and psychological suffering
and from Tom’s autopsy report—both undeniable proof of the physical and
psychological suffering that chimpanzees endure, noting, “Their stories are
not atypical.” She asserted that, “Arguing [their] worth to research, except
as a study of its casualties, would be indefensible.” The room was silent.
She appealed to the Committee that to arrive at an informed decision, the
ethical concerns surrounding chimpanzee use cannot be put aside—for
scientific as well as ethical reasons and that including them “will direct
the better science that would follow.”

Several others testified in favor of ending research on chimpanzees,
notably Dr. Jane Goodall, who joined the meeting via video conference. Dr.
Goodall pointed out that over the last 10 years, “…technology has exploded
with new techniques in research.” Goodall also said of chimpanzees kept
captive for research, “…from their point of view, it’s like torture.”

Other scientists presented on topics including chimpanzee behavior,
genetics, communication, learning, and the role of chimpanzees in hepatitis
research, monoclonal antibodies, malaria, biodefense, and alternative
methods.

Animal researchers and representatives of the biomedical lobby industry
or those currently engaged in the “business” of doing or providing
chimpanzees for research provided testimony in favor of keeping chimpanzees
in labs. But on the order of the numbers game, the side to end research on
chimpanzees overtook the session, with those in support of it failing to
adequately argue either its worth or necessity. Especially important was
scientific testimony from Ann-Marie Cruz, Program Officer, Research and
Development, PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative; Theresa Reynolds, Director,
Safety Assessment, Genentech; and Robert Hamatake, Director of HCV Biology,
GlaxoSmithKline. They all testified that with advances in technology,
chimpanzees are no longer necessary for developing high tech drugs called
monoclonal antibodies, vaccines for epidemic diseases like malaria and other
areas. Following this encouraging trilogy, on day two was the testimony from
James Swearengen, former Director of Comparative Medicine, National
Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center. He began his testimony on
biodefense research noting that his comments would be short and to the
point. “I am not aware of any historic use of chimpanzees, no current use
and, for the future, I don’t envision any need.”

The Committee’s role throughout the two days was a mix of penetrating
questions that stayed on task and challenged presenters to back their
arguments, clarify and support their conclusions as to both the necessity
and even the applicability of chimpanzee use to human health. Still, the
questions of other members appeared biased in the foregone conclusion that
chimpanzees and all animal models are valid.

Fortunately, public and NEAVS’ criticism of the original Committee
composition led to the inclusion of some new members with less direct or
vested interest in the animal model. These members are proving extremely
important in raising public confidence that the Committee may be able to
reach an objective conclusion and may minimize the impact of “old school”
researchers who resist progress.

We can only hope that the Committee finds with us that the use of
chimpanzees in research is neither necessary nor productive for human
health. If that happens, we can only hope that NIH heeds the Committee’s
recommendations. There are too many reasons not to: 1,000 chimpanzees in
U.S. laboratories and millions of humans suffering from diseases for which
effective research is long overdue.

The Committee initially convened on April 5th and expects to issue its
final report by the end of 2011.

Fair Use Notice: This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.